2007-08-31 TPUAKO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The ones that have been included, like securing the water supply within a year I think is really important because of the uncertainty of the water was really an issue for us. There are references to grading ordinances and best management practices and so on in those conditions. I’m not completely comfortable, as a biologist very familiar with that adjacent reef, that we still won’t run into trouble, particularly if all of the lots were being graded at the same time in the middle of a major flood event. So I think, we would hope that the contractors working for the developers would go through some extra lengths to insure that the areas are secured to protect them in the event of a serious rain problem. We’re very pleased to see the direction about working with State DOBAR on the boat ramp. That is a very important issue for us. It’s already overcrowded. And once this access is open along the front of the development, we’re quite certain there will be a number of other people wanting to use it; and so that definitely needs some repair. Glad to see the reference to the septic systems. I would just suggest that we want to make sure that we’re consistent with what’s happening elsewhere in Puako. Whereas my understanding, certainly our case, building just a few years ago there was a requirement for an aerobic system. We’d be delighted to see something better than that but this looks, we’re very happy since there still remain many cesspools and poorly developed septic systems in that area. Other potential conditions to consider -- many of the landowners raised in the meetings with the developer that some security that there won’t be further subdivision. And it sounds like from your comments, Mr. Yuen, that a subsequent landowner could come in for a permit that would create something different than is being permitted by this request. And, in fact, several of the landowners in the area requested that the developers propose that this area be rezoned now so there was no likelihood of further subdivision.But I’ll just mention that that makes everybody very nervous what might happen after-the-fact. We also had suggested that there be some references or comments made about dealing with coqui frogs. We have worked very hard to keep coqui out of Puako and are not interested in dealing with landscapers that are not taking care to avoid this problem. So we would ask the developer to take precautions to deal with the landscaping problem. We also requested some safety provisions. If you’ve driven this road you know that the potential entrance to the development is right on a, kind of a blind curve coming down the hill from the boat ramp area. And we’re concerned about potential accidents and have asked the developer to suggest calming devices, signage, mirrors, whatever we can do to mitigate that problem. And, finally, this may seem like a silly issue but there is one unusually large keawe tree referred to as the Goto tree which the developers have agreed to protect and retain; and we’d like to see that be a condition of the development. I’ve two remaining issues of serious concerns that were covered in that letter. But ironically and unfortunately, I guess, the development is downstream and downwind and next door to a lot of problems, and one of which you talked about earlier which is flooding. And we appreciate and commend the developer for their extra effort to try to deal with the problem they’ve dealt with, which is all the water coming downstream off of State lands. But we’ve asked the developer, and I don’t know to what extent you can condition this, but it might be similar to the DOBAR EXHIBIT B 9